A major part of my steelhead fishing now involves fishing from boats. This includes a lot of "upper river" sections. The teamwork and comradery generated by two or three people working water via skilled rowing and fishing is an awesome combination. Losing this on some of my favorite waters will be a tough pill to swallow. Maybe necessary but certainly tough. Yet one more steelhead love walking out the door.



http://wildsteelheadcoalition.org/2012/06/2012-wsc-sportfishing-rule-proposals-wdfw/

It sucks, but it is good for the native spawn, I never have targeted the beds but noticed lots of people fishen them. This will only help, but the upper rivers should be off limits totally until the run size is at the maximum.

Many holding lies in the stretches of the proposed areas would be unreachable without a floating devise. On the other hand, these proposals would certainly level the playing field a bit I guess. I am definitely interested in hearing other users takes on this as I'm a bit on the fence so far.

I feel you man but I don't think you need to worry, this will never pass.

All and I mean all of my favorite fishing seasons in the Whatcom and Skagit Counties have taken an massive hit the last 10 years from closures. I know this sounds like something only a fly fart would say but I say bring on the weird regs if it means being able to stand in my favorite rivers at the right times of year and having a tiny chance at hooking up. I want to be able to fish. The catching is just a bonus.

If a river can be kept open to sport fishermen in some capacity by weird regs than so be it. The alternative is its gone forever.

Maybe Im just a post-tard but I tried to see what this post was about and failed through 3 layers of links. You would be more effective pasting the key information directly, then the links.

I agree with the sentiment about boating in upper sections, but i have no idea where or what the issue is because i cant find the information on the links, and I dont have the patience to spend a lot of time digging for it.

Just a suggestion...

I won't be happy until the smaller rivers all have a "no fishing allowed from a floating device" rule in place. No more anchors tearing up redds, no boats blocking access to holes, etc.

Most fish management is social management. We begin with the commons which fairly quickly leads to the well known tragedy of the commons because if access to the public resource is not limited, the natural and logical incentive is for each person to take all he can for himself before someone else does, leaving little or none for him. It's the bird in the hand mentality beats two in the bush. The fact that it leads to resource depletion or extirpation is secondary. The world abounds with examples.

The alternative is restrictions, preferably ones that favor my interest over yours, but it's a bit early to go there just yet.

Management begins with restrictions on seasons and catch limits and lawful gear. With more than twice as many people in WA state than wild salmon and steelhead can support, additional restrictions are necessary.

There are simple black and white alternatives for whom I think of as simple people but has been promoted by organizations like the Wildcat Steelhead Club and others at one time or another: If the stock cannot support a kill harvest, close it down to everybody, no special gear or CNR seasons. The reason I think that's a simple minded solution is because a lot of stocks can support some kill harvest, but not enough for a wide open season. That means the choice is a total closure or some kind of limited opening. That could still be a kill season, like 2 days/year, 1 midweek day, and maybe 1 Saturday. Or a lottery, like for a moose, sheep, or mountain goat tag.

Other options have included selective gear regulations and CNR. That worked when more anglers believed like the Wildcatters and wouldn't fish unless they could kill their catch. Now CNR, and even flyfishing, has increased 10-fold or more (even though the state's human population only increased 2.5x). Other bits have included (in the selective gear regs) no fishing from a powerboat, or not while the boat is under power.

The Deschutes River in OR banned fishing from boats in the 1930s to create a conservation sanctuary in the middle of the river, while bait and catch limits were still allowed to bank and wading anglers. Even though more restrictive regulations have been added, the boat fishing ban has continued. (As an aside, few fishermen complain about it and generally agree that it contributes to the quality of the fishery.)

Boat fishing bans increase the amount of conservation sanctuary water without closing the river miles in question entirely to fishing. It's another incremental restriction on fishing opportunity. What's the alternative? A lottery drawing to see if you or I will be the lucky angler who is allowed to fish from a boat this season?

What I think is missing from the proposal is taking the measure downstream for the latter part of the season, since steelhead spawn in mainstems all the way to the head of tidewater if the habitat is there.

Sg

This sure makes perfect sense to me as the lower river spawners generally come later in the season.

Heres a wild ascot perspective (mine):

1.) As to JB's point. These sorts of reg.'s (no fising from a floating device)would get you exactly 0 days back on the PS streams. It makes no difference in our current paradigm. Get it out of your head. That isn't how it works here in PS. Eliminating hatchery fish actually could as I see it so could broodstock hatch fish although they are a pretty damn dumb idea.

2.) This will turn anglers against anglers. I don't fish gear for steelhead and I'll go home before I will pick up a fly rod with a bobber. I do not think less of those who do though and I am not about to restrict their oppertunity and not mine. I'd rather shut it down to everyone than do that.

3.) The only advocates for wild steelhead are anglers. The tribes could care less, the fins get in the way of more harvest mostly (especially in PS). General public does not care. Without anglers, no good will ever be done.

4.) The issues with steelhead have little to so with angler C&R pressure. The issues deal with hatcheries and harvest. Thow the fVck is this reg. gonna help?

In a nutshell, this is what I think. We need to stop looking towards angler reg's as a way to bring back steelhead. It solves nothing and it serves to lessen their total number of advocates.

Go Sox,
cds

no gear types get removed from the rivers under these regs. changes in how one fishes, yes but no bans on types of gear.

we honestly do not know the scientific impact on high levels of c&r on wild steelhead. how does repeated c&r impact spawning success? how can high levels of c&r be good on rivers barely or not making escapement (hoh)?

as with most fishery impacts we are always behind the curve in believing they are harmful. many people still think hatcheries take pressure off wild fish. many people think sport harvest has minimal impact. people do not want to believe they are having a negative impact.

if we want to continue fishing for much longer we need to do more. creating sanctuary water and reducing some of the impact is something we can do immediately while we fight the big impacts.

the side benefit is that it will likely improve the angling experience for many anglers.

another proposal was for statewide wild steelhead release, mandatory hatchery retention statewide, and release of all wild rainbow trout in any river with steelhead. these and the boat ban would all have a positive impact on wild steelhead. will any alone bring us back from the brink? i don't think so but not doing anything until we find the "magic" bullet is even worse.

chris

Give that man a GOLD star!

I understand what you are saying.There are social implications though. I can hear the people crying about how the ascot's and flyflingers came up with these reg's just so they can get the river to themselves. More division within the ranks of the only people who care (anglers) is not good. It could very well be much worse than C&R impacts.

If course many of those same "victims" would be against hatchery reductions or mndatory wild steelhead release as well.

I look to the Skagit, Thompson etc. and I can't see a time where elimination or reduction of C&R impacts have helped fish populations rebound.

My bigger issue is that we continue to look at changes to the rule book to help us out. I ust don't see the problem located anywhere in that book.

Go Sox,
cds

I'm 100% behind the proposals as they're written. Creating some sanctuary water is a good thing for these poor fish. Watch the guide industry start to throw some obfuscation into the gears of this. It'll be thin on logic and dodging the fact that this'll make steelhead just a little harder to hook in certain parts of these sensitive watersheds, which is a good thing,

fb

Could we consider not allowing gillnetting? Seems like half of zero is still zero

Pipe dreams, Until you stop the sleds from running in shallow waters and disturbing redds, And take the kill nets out of the scope of the main problems, then you just keep attacking those that do love this resource. The problem on the Queets is not boats on upper sections ( I understand it was not mentioned as a target system). Nor bait on the upper sections as there are restrictions in place, It lies with the kill nets 5-6 days a week, choking off the upriver migration. A once majestic water shed, barely holding it's own. Habitat is not it's main problem. what happens around 101 is. If you want to do good then, attack the problem at it's roots. They don't net in Oregon, figure out what they did. Or give slots to everyone, And us the tax resource to enhance habitat. Ya think the tribes want everyone to have them.... Not. Time to make a stance.

I think one of the WSC's missions over the past few years has been making attempts to restore the early component of the run on the Peninsula coastal rivers (Snider program elimination/wild fish retention to Feb 15). Historically, January was the peak of the wild steelhead run on the Quillayute I believe. Those fish have all but disappeared...they are aiming to prevent exploitation of those earlier fish that head to the upper reaches to spawn.

Not to mention the fact that this proposal would most likely be DOA if they wanted to close fishing from a moving watercraft all the way down to tidewater.

I think these restrictions have a high likelihood of being enacted on a subset of what's listed...maybe the upper Duc and Bogi.

Fact of the matter is that someone's going to get the short end of the stick here...just the way it is these days. If we fail to do anything for fear of rocking the boat, we'll ALL end up reading about the good old days and paying $6,000/week to go steelhead fishing once every 5 years. Some outfits on the Bulkley are already advertising the "Weekender Alien Special" for $600/day.

How much pull does the WSC have in proposing anything to anybody? It's a small group that would be quite easily ignored on the state level.

Unless this proposal lines up with what the state has in mind anyway it's just background noise to those that actually make the rules...How it will affect the states license sales income will have more to do with the final decision than the health of steelhead, rivers or steelhead fishermen.

Anybody ask WDFW how they intend to sontinue to sell licenses? Seriously. What is the future of recreational fishing in WA, for what species, and how?

For steelheading, where would you take a novice fishing that didn't already require boat ownership to access? Where would a novice angler of any kind find a shore-based fishery that offers a reasonable chance of catching fish?

Our fish resources (many) are in trouble and need restrictions on kill. But, the sport of fishing may similalry be in trouble and how is that being dealt with?

In the ER Room that is WA resource management, that is the preferred method of treatment.

It's always fun to see folks who own boats say "fishing now involves boating". It's been a good length of time since I considered myself a bankie, I made the choice to become a boater for access to various marine fisheries, and I also figured a large issue would eventually be access due to private ownership of riverbanks. I didn't figure divvying up who gets the opportunity would ever become an issue.

The real crux is the bankies foot the bill.

Yeah, for all you guys who will come back saying how much you spend on boating/tackle/rigs....well that stuff goes either back to the feds or into the general state account. WDFW doens't get general fund money to manage our rec fisheries anymore, and not even god knows how the feds divvy the money they give back to the states. The sheer gross number of licenses that are sold in this state are for the freshwater, and to folks who likely walk to their favorite fishing spot, most likely with the walmart rod special. They tend to get the short end of the stick when it comes to a 'voice' in the matter. The reason is the same as anything else....money. The guy who sold you your current vessel, well his pocketbook dictates that fisheries in WA state better keep moving toward boat owners only, as it has been for some time. It's unfortunate, but the way things seem to keep going, as it does limit the amount of new anglers and kids that have access to try new things out. IF you started fishing by buying a boat and immediately going out and learning everything you know about fishing from a boat....well good for you, but I'd bet most of us when we were young walked (or rode a bike) to our favorite 'secret' spot. It's really too bad that I support some of WSC proposal's for that fact that....well we need to keep access to a dwindling resource open to those the next generation, and especially given the economic times....they definitely won't be doing it en masse in boats.